Bridget Prentice: My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor has made the following written ministerial statement:
	The Government are continuing to look at ways to modernise our electoral system and to increase the opportunities that people have to vote. To test the effectiveness and robustness of these innovations and to build public confidence in them, we are continuing to conduct a programme of pilots in 2007 which maintains the momentum that was started in 2000.
	With this aim in mind, in the middle of October 2006 we issued a prospectus in conjunction with the Electoral Commission, inviting expressions of interest from local authorities seeking to run electoral pilots at the May 2007 local elections in England.
	Today I am pleased to announce that I have accepted 12 applications from local authorities to hold pilots at the May 2007 local elections. The names of the successful local authorities are attached at the end of this statement. A background paper providing further details on the pilots has been placed in the House Library.
	The local authorities will pilot innovations including:
	the re-commencement of e-voting pilots on a small and controlled scale, testing a number of avenues including internet, telephone voting and the use of 'centralised all-elections' facilities at polling stations for advance and polling day voting which will enable us to explore the impact of this important part of the modernisation agenda.
	electronic counting of ballot papers which will build on past work and test how this can be refined to ensure confidence and support future use of technology to gain efficiencies in the administration of elections. This will also enable us to identify how technology can support counting in different size authorities and voting systems used in local authority and regional elections.
	a number of pilots that will provide further evidence about the benefits of advance voting on a cumulative basis, including three local authorities (Sunderland, Gateshead and Broxbourne) that did this last year. That will enable us to see if advance voting shows increased use on a year-on-year basis and help inform decisions about the value of allowing advance voting as a general provision.
	as part of these pilots we have asked local authorities if they would be willing to include signing in polling stations. All are happy to do so in the advance voting period, and Bedford and Sunderland are also willing to do so on polling day.
	To support those pilots that will be utilising electronic services, we have undertaken a rigorous procurement exercise and have established a framework of suitable suppliers for the piloting authorities to use.
	The next step will be for us, working in consultation with the Electoral Commission and the local authorities, to draw up the statutory orders authorising the pilots.
	The Electoral Commission also has a statutory duty to evaluate every pilot scheme, and report its findings within three months of the election. The Commission will submit individual evaluation reports on each pilot scheme to the Secretary of State and the local authority concerned.
	We are grateful to all local authorities that applied to pilot in May 2007 and are keen to continue to engage local authorities in looking at innovative ways to improve the elections process and take advantage of new technologies.
	Total: 12
	Bedford Borough Council
	Breckland Council
	Borough of Broxbourne
	Dover District Council
	Gateshead Council
	Rushmoor Borough Council
	Sheffield City Council
	Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council
	South Bucks District Council
	Stratford-on-Avon District Council and Warwick District Council (joint application)
	Sunderland City Council
	Swindon Borough Council

Paul Goggins: On 4 September 2006, I launched a wide-ranging review of the effectiveness of the temporary provisions of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. This review formed part of the Secretary of State's statutory duty to have regard to progress made towards securing that membership of the police and police support staff is representative of the community in Northern Ireland, and to consult with the policing board, when making a decision as to whether these provisions should be renewed. This consultation ended on 27 November 2006.
	As a result of these temporary provisions, tremendous progress has been made during the last few years towards a more representative Police Service for Northern Ireland with the proportion of Catholic officers in the regulars increasing from 8.3 per cent. in 1998 to 21.19 per cent. on 17 January 2007. The number of Catholic applications to the PSNI has also been encouraging, averaging 35 per cent. in each competition. Catholic representation among civilian staff also continues to rise. The percentage of directly recruited Catholic police support staff has increased from 13.76 per cent. in January 2002 to 22.12 per cent. on 1 January 2007 with the overall composition now at 16.99 per cent. There are a number of initiatives ongoing which will continue to improve this over time. An example of this is the proposed introduction of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) who will be civilians recruited under the 50:50 provisions.
	The Government are committed in continuing to address the religious imbalance within the police service and the St. Andrews agreement makes it clear that the temporary 50:50 recruitment arrangements to the PSNI will lapse when the Government's target of 30 per cent. Catholic officers has been achieved. For these reasons, and after looking carefully at the responses to the consultation, the Secretary of State has now decided that those temporary provisions should be renewed for a further three years. This will enable the Government to reach its target of 30 per cent. Catholic representation in PSNI by 2010-11. That is why today I am laying before Parliament the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (Renewal of Temporary Provisions) Order 2007. There will be an opportunity to debate the order in both Houses of Parliament.

James Plaskitt: The Employment and Social Policy informal meeting was held on 18 to 20 January in Berlin, Germany.
	My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary for Employment Relations and Postal Services (Jim Fitzpatrick) represented the UK.
	The theme of the informal was "Good Work—More and Better Jobs", which was discussed in two plenary sessions.
	My hon. Friend participated in the morning plenary stressing that the real outsiders were the unemployed. He went on to say that if Europe is to remain competitive in a global market and continue to afford valued social protection systems, flexible labour markets are needed both for workers and employers to stimulate job creation and encourage more people into work. One size does not fit all and member states have to develop approaches that work for their own labour market structures and traditions. But overly restrictive employment legislation risks a two-tier labour market and more jobs in the illegal sector. Effective, light-touch employment legislation is consistent job creation, and more permanent jobs. For example in the UK, while we encourage choice in ways of working only 6 per cent. of the work force is on non-standard contracts; all workers have certain basic rights.
	My right hon. Friend was one of eight keynote speakers in the afternoon session. He said that the best way to manage insecurities was to provide employment security through equipping people to manage and take advantage of change, rather than through protectionism and over-regulation. This could be done by providing insurance in the broadest sense—through active labour market policies, skills and re-training, and the right labour law framework. Most of this work had to be done at member state level, but in the context of our shared European values. Even well functioning labour markets could have groups of vulnerable workers but it should not be assumed that this was due to their employment status alone.
	All member states broadly agreed on the importance of high levels of health and safety at work. There was a strong emphasis on the social dimension of Europe—including, from some quarters, calls for an EU minimum wage, minimum standards for workers on 'atypical contracts' and a European definition of a worker—although others continued to emphasise the primacy of meeting Lisbon targets and made it clear that social issues were for member states to decide. They also underlined the important role of social partners, of work-life balance, of life-long learning, of a greater emphasis on skills and training, better childcare facilities, and promoting gender equality. Most member states agreed that it was up to them to lead on social issues, although the EU could provide added value by exchanging best practise and a general framework. The other recurring theme was that, with increased mobility of workers and free movement, member states had to cooperate more closely.
	The German presidency concluded that we needed to look further at a number of issues, including the integration of ethnic groups and minorities into the labour market, grey areas such as bogus independent workers, and where the balance between rights and responsibilities was. Also, that part-time work could be positive when it was what the workers wanted, but there were concerns that increased temporary work created uncertainty for employees where this was at the expense of permanent regular contracts. Social policy was a national issue. The German presidency would continue to try and define what the social dimension of Lisbon should be.